Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 20 hours ago
I find it really weird that companies would want to pay the enormous cost of maintaining huge buildings full of people, that don’t actually need to be there, in person. That just seems like a huge waste of money.
Partly because people that control large companies that buy large office buildings have a lot of money to lose if office space were devalued as much as it should be.
Large commercial office spaces are one of the more historically stable investments that banks have money tied up in. The WFH shift of covid was a massive threat to those portfolios and freaked people out
This is the answer. And the C levels renting from these spaces are absolutely invested in the companies that lease the space.
I’ve seen it even more incestuous as well. CEO buys building for kids and lets other C levels get in on it. The company rents a space. Everyone at C level agrees it’s the best space because they can get a sweetheart deal on rent for the company. Company pays for space, money flows back to C Suite and CEO doesn’t have to pay for kids’ lifestyles anymore.
There’s a very nice office building like that down from me, except it’s CEOs cousin or nephew or something. It came out when they started pushing for RTO as soon as they could.
Must be nice getting C level salary, a little extra in your bonus for getting a sweetheart rental deal, and passive income from being a partial owner of the building your company rents from.
Control freaks are afraid of not getting the full attention of their employees - especially the “overemployed” crowd holding down multiple jobs simultaneously while working from home.
The money isn’t the whole point. It’s also about control and emotions. Management wants to feel a way and they’ll pay for it. And/or make you pay for it
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
Sunk cost fallacy